Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Goomba/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Goomba[edit]

--[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:26, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

  • Have all the previous objections been addressed? →Raul654 00:34, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, pretty much. The old nomination was defeated for being too short; since them, much more information has been added, as well as several high-quality images. --[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:40, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. jengod 02:04, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Never knew there was such an amount of info on these little guys. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 11:19, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. There was one thing unclear to me (as one who only played the orginal Mario Bros....) What is "Bowser" (in the "Goombas in Mario games")? That could do with an explanation or Wikilink, I think. Mpolo 12:43, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. They have names? :) Once again, can you cite references? Zerbey 16:07, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Andre (talk) 17:24, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • 1.) Lead section is very short and could stand to be expanded to several sentences instead of three. And it is still a little choppy and repetitive. 2.) Also there are still too many one or two sentence paragraphs. I fixed one, but the others would take someone knowledgeable in the subject. 3.) The two sentences on word origin seems a little innapropriate as an entire section. - Taxman 18:28, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I like it. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Agree fully with taxman: needs lead section, no single sentence paragraphs. Jeronimo 06:48, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Definite support. --Golbez 06:50, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Locarno 15:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It would be nice if some of the above issues were addressed, however. pie4all88 20:58, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I agree with Taxman's objections. Here are some objections I have after reading the article:
  1. The word origin section needs more expansion, like what source states that the basis of the character's name came from the Italian-American slang word, rather than just being a coincidence of having the same spelling? The word origin paragraph needs more cohesion. It talks about Italian-American slang then abruptly jumps to a sentence about a Hungarian word.
  2. The first paragraph in the "Characteristics" section doesn't flow evenly. It starts out describing the general appearance and transitions into their traitor status. Then, it suddenly goes back describing their appearance.
  3. Several paragraphs in the "Goombas in Mario games" need to be expanded with more information about the goombas in those respective games. These include the first paragraph, which talks about the original Super Mario Bros., the paragraph about Super Mario 64, and the paragraph about Paper Mario. Just stating a sentence or two without more detail isn't helpful to someone who isn't familiar with goombas in those games.
  4. The "Goombas in non-Mario games" section needs more details about goombas in those games. Like what are the differences in appearance, behavior, etc. between a general goomba from a Mario game compared to a goomba from those particular non-Mario games? Were they integrated in those game plots or just allusions to the Mario games?
  5. In the "Goombas in other mediums", more information needs to be provided about the goombas in the movie, like how were they different compared to the video games?
  6. Most of the external links are all going to one site. Instead of providing a link to every possible goomba page on that site, only one link needs to be provided with a description of what information can be found on the site. Sixpence 08:19, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Those who object: how's it doing? Andre (talk) 05:28, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral, its pretty good. Still too many one sentence paragraphs (one is too many) and almost no references. There has got to be more than one external link about. Something in print perhaps? - Taxman 23:42, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: It looks like only a microscopic portion of my objections were satisfied. When changes were made to fix some of the objections, it created other problems. For example, the fixing of the first paragraph in the "Characteristics" section created a one sentence paragraph on their traitor status. Plus, I have a new objection. I agree with Taxman on the lack of references cited. Those vague "according to the xxxx manual" may be okay in other written work, but it's insufficient for an encyclopedia article. Try looking at most of the other featured articles. There's a consistent format when it comes to citing printed materials, like those game manuals. Sixpence 04:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How are we doing, now? Andre (talk) 00:36, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)